HIV-positive , should I use a condom with girlfriend???

[Ormus]

Ohmygod why are people so dumb???
I'm not referring to anyone here, but why be so horrified at what the journalist did? LOOK at what it revealed! And yet, the church defends itself. The church is an institution of questionable integrity. This proves not only that, but the sheer stupidity of the Roman Catholic Church. How is it anything but sincere idiocy to suggest someone with an STD refrain from using a condom is beyond me.

You said it before I could...heh.

 

[indra]

Ohmygod why are people so dumb???
I'm not referring to anyone here, but why be so horrified at what the journalist did? LOOK at what it revealed! And yet, the church defends itself. The church is an institution of questionable integrity. This proves not only that, but the sheer stupidity of the Roman Catholic Church. How is it anything but sincere idiocy to suggest someone with an STD refrain from using a condom is beyond me.

I agree. I have no problem with what the reporter did, but I do have a problem with priests giving what amounts to medical advice. They shouldn't have answered that question (the I have HIV, should I use a condom one), instead they should have told him to ask a doctor. I actually would not have a problem with a priest saying "church teaching says you shouldn't be having sex with your girlfriend before marriage," but what the two mentioned did say is really bad advice. I mean that can't be that much of an off the wall question -- they should have some clue how to answer it.

 

[Liesje]

It must be very difficult for someone who has any STD, especially AIDS, to feel comfortable revealing that to a partner, particularly if you're not talking about the sort of relationship where you're involved for a long time before you start having sex. I'd imagine the reality is many, if not most, people would reject you in rather short order upon learning that. I can understand why someone would feel very, very reluctant to divulge it early on in a relationship. Not that I can't understand Lies' and Vincent's perspective at the same time...but...I wonder how likely most people would really be to give someone HIV-positive a chance if they learned about that before they were sure this was someone they could see themselves sticking with for a long, long time. Which realistically, most people nowadays aren't accustomed to waiting until that point to start having sex.

I would give them a chance as long as they were honest from the beginning. I can't say whether or not we'd be having much sex, but I'm not saying HIV+ people are bad people not worthy of committed relationships. I'm saying that getting mad at me for asking for disclosure or lying when I ask are two things that are not acceptable to me, regardless of what STDs the person may or may not have. It would also depend on how they got the STD. Was it an accident or a one-time thing where they didn't use a condom? Or are they promiscuous and don't even know where the disease came from? The former I can deal with, the latter I can't. Respect of one's body and the bodies of others has always been very important to me, just like I can't tolerate someone who's racist even if they are a virgin with no STDs.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, to have sex with someone, you have to love him/her.
If she revealed to me of being HIV positive it wouldn't stop me from loving her. But I would think twice before having sex with her.
If I found out later, I would feel that she cheated on me.

Of course it is important to ask this question, being uncomfortable or not.
But like I said before, if she had such a disease and knew about it, but hid it from me it would have been her fault not to tell me.

For me it is not acceptable to hide such an important thing from someone, and afterwards simply say, "You didn't ask, it's your fault."
In a relationship I also think honesty is a very important issue, and so I would think she told me if she knew of any disease before we had sex.

But I think this is something Irvine and I think very different about, and so any discussion would just move in a circle.

 

[Irvine511]

on the whole, i am talking about the early part of a sexual relationship -- naturally, people who must be in love to have sex would probably have already crossed this bridge (though, would HIV disclosure prevent you from going any furhter in a relationship?), but i think we know that many, many people have sex before they are in love, and have sex sometimes very early in the relationship.

but this all begs the question: what is an HIV person to do? celibacy?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Not celibacy, but being honest, and don't wait for the other to ask.

 

[Irvine511]

Not celibacy, but being honest, and don't wait for the other to ask.

but we seem to have people on this board who are saying that they probably wouldn't have sex with an HIV positive person, and i think we have to admit the possibility that such a big red flag might derail a relationship before it progressed to a sexual one.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I for one would never have sex with a HIV positive person. I don't care if they wear a condom, pull out before ejaculation or whatever - I would not have a sexual relationship with a HIV positive person. Perhaps is certain situations (like a long term partner getting HIV through a blood transfusion) then the lines are blurred.

But I do believe that it is a criminal offence for someone who knows they have HIV to sleep with someone without protection and not tell them. That is taking someone elses health and life into their hands, and I am totally against anyone having a power over someone elses life.

I also do not think its stigmatizing to say you wouldn't sleep with someone who has HIV. I wouldn't sleep with a lot of people - women, someone a few years younger then me, men with moustaches, a man shorter then me etc. Yes, I may be picky, and sure in the past i've been called a bitch for rejecting a guy shorter then me, but surely its up to ME who I let get into my pants - and this includes HIV positive people. i am SURE there are plenty of people out there who would sleep with them, so why should I feel bad that I won't?

As the for the question - I don't believe HIV people should be celebate or only sleep with out HIV positive people - but as there is no foold proof way of having safe sex - then HIV people should be mature enough to realise that people may not want to risk their health to be with them (this isn't just HIV - this is lots of STDS and contageious diseases)

But who knows if my opinion would chage if i ever met a HIV person I was attracted to.


Also - regarding the story - I think it basically shows the strength of misinformation that is still apparent in religious circles - vary scary.

 

[yolland]

But I do believe that it is a criminal offence for someone who knows they have HIV to sleep with someone without protection and not tell them. That is taking someone elses health and life into their hands, and I am totally against anyone having a power over someone elses life.

Sure, I don't think anyone was talking a without-protection scenario here, though.

I also do not think its stigmatizing to say you wouldn't sleep with someone who has HIV. I wouldn't sleep with a lot of people - women, someone a few years younger then me, men with moustaches, a man shorter then me etc. Yes, I may be picky, and sure in the past i've been called a bitch for rejecting a guy shorter then me, but surely its up to ME who I let get into my pants - and this includes HIV positive people. i am SURE there are plenty of people out there who would sleep with them, so why should I feel bad that I won't?

Well, I'm not so sure there are plenty of people who would. But I don't know if those 'picky' things you named are really analogous to being HIV-positive, because they all involve stuff that's readily visible, so you're not very likely to get to the stage where you could deeply hurt someone by rejecting them for those reasons to begin with.

It is a very thorny issue though, I wouldn't disagree with that.

 

[redhotswami]

didn't Pope Benedict approve of condoms for couples where one or both partners were infected with HIV or AIDS? or, didn't he initiate some sort of "investigation" or something? i thought i read one of the cardinals saying that it isn't sex with a condom that is sinful, it is the preventing of procreation...because they are concerned with human life. and in cases like these, the lives needing to be saved are the couples'...or something like that.

that being said, before the catholic bashing continues, I just wanna emphasize that what this reporter uncovered was conflicting opinions...in short, really no news at all. I see a lot of people focusing on the response saying not to use a condom. But there were others who disagreed. The church sure isn't perfect, we all know this, but it isn't homogenous either.

 

[yolland]

Yeah, there is a declaration of that sort in the works, although it's unclear when it will come out, from what I read. It deals specifically with married couples where one partner is HIV-positive, though; obviously (if ironically) the priest who said "don't use a condom with your girlfriend" was going against Catholic doctrine to begin with by suggesting it was OK to have sex with one's girlfriend at all.

Here is the page from the article recounting the interchange with that particular priest--only in Italian though, which I can't read, but maybe someone in here does. I can tell from looking at it that he said more than merely 'No,' but I can't make out what else he said, and as usual the worthless Google "translation" engine doesn't yield anything coherent either.

 

[redhotswami]

Thanks! I didn't even know there was a google translation! I always used babelfish.

obviously (if ironically) the priest who said "don't use a condom with your girlfriend" was going against Catholic doctrine to begin with by suggesting it was OK to have sex with one's girlfriend at all.

yeah, i thought that was pretty silly too. i don't know if he misunderstood the "girlfriend" part, or if he was just one-track minded.

 

[redhotswami]

I just found this from the Guardian. Looks like a decision should be made sometime this month!

After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift
NOV 23, 2006

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.
Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.

The recommendations, which have not been made public, still have to be reviewed by the traditionally conservative Vatican department responsible for safeguarding theological orthodoxy, and then by the Pope himself, before any decision is made.

The rethink, commissioned by Pope Benedict following his election last year, could save millions of lives around the world. It is likely to be raised today when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has his first full discussion with the Pope at an audience in the Vatican.

Campaigners and organisations involved in the fight against Aids have long been pressing the Vatican to change its stance on condoms, which they believe obstructs attempts to save millions of lives. Last year the head of HIV/Aids at the World Health Organisation initiated talks with the Vatican to see if any movement could be made on the issue.

The Mexican cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who heads the papal department responsible for health issues, revealed on Tuesday that he had completed the first stage of the review. A 200-page report, reflecting opinion within the church, had been sent to the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's "theology ministry", he said.

He did not reveal its conclusions. But Cardinal Barragán is known to favour reform and Vatican sources said it was highly likely that he had come out in support of using condoms in marriages where one of the partners was HIV-positive.

The Italian newspaper La Repubblica, which broke the news of the policy review earlier this year, reported yesterday that the Vatican would "go from prohibition to the definition of exceptional cases in which it would be possible for the faithful to use prophylactics to avert fatal risks".

Cardinal Barragán noted a passage from a 1981 document issued by the late Pope John Paul II. This said that "every conjugal act must be open to life".

Until now, this has been interpreted as an injunction against contraception. But it could also be used to support an argument in favour of the preservation of life by the use of barrier methods.

The cardinal said some 40 million people were reckoned to be HIV positive and Aids was claiming around 8,000 lives a day. "The disease is not retreating. On the contrary, its aggressiveness seems to be increasing, even though in the more developed countries the strength of the increase is noticed less," he said.

The first-hand experience of Roman Catholic missionaries and pastors in the developing world has been the driving force behind the current rethink. But it is also noted in the Vatican that the Pope, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, left open the possibility of a change in the church's stance.

The 1987 document Donum Vitae, which he signed together with the late Pope, declared that the Roman Catholic church could never agree to the use of contraceptives in homosexual relationships or by men and women who were not married. However, it omitted to mention married couples. In recent years, the case for condoms as a defence against Aids has been taken up publicly by several Roman Catholic leaders. The Belgian cardinal Godfried Daneels broke the taboo in 2004 when he said it was morally different from using a condom for birth control.

The following year, the Pope's own theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier signalled doubts within the papal household and argued that the Roman Catholic "theology of life" could be used to justify a lifting of the ban. "The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death," he said. "And that is where the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' is valid."

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a former archbishop of Milan who was considered a candidate for the papacy, said earlier this year that a married person with HIV was "obliged" to protect his or her partner from the disease.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will now consider the issue, was headed by Pope Benedict for 24 years before his election. After he became Pope, he appointed as his successor an American, Cardinal William Levada. For the previous 10 years, Cardinal Levada had been Archbishop of San Francisco - a city where the spread of Aids was a key issue and where Roman Catholic charities played a leading role in supplying care to sufferers. But the cardinal has not himself offered a view in public on the debate.

The Italian daily Corriere della Sera said the Pope's decision could be announced as early as next February, on the 20th anniversary of the publication of Donum Vitae.

 

[fly so high!]

I for one would never have sex with a HIV positive person. I don't care if they wear a condom, pull out before ejaculation or whatever - I would not have a sexual relationship with a HIV positive person. Perhaps is certain situations (like a long term partner getting HIV through a blood transfusion) then the lines are blurred.

But I do believe that it is a criminal offence for someone who knows they have HIV to sleep with someone without protection and not tell them. That is taking someone elses health and life into their hands, and I am totally against anyone having a power over someone elses life.

I also do not think its stigmatizing to say you wouldn't sleep with someone who has HIV. I wouldn't sleep with a lot of people - women, someone a few years younger then me, men with moustaches, a man shorter then me etc. Yes, I may be picky, and sure in the past i've been called a bitch for rejecting a guy shorter then me, but surely its up to ME who I let get into my pants - and this includes HIV positive people. i am SURE there are plenty of people out there who would sleep with them, so why should I feel bad that I won't?

As the for the question - I don't believe HIV people should be celebate or only sleep with out HIV positive people - but as there is no foold proof way of having safe sex - then HIV people should be mature enough to realise that people may not want to risk their health to be with them (this isn't just HIV - this is lots of STDS and contageious diseases)

But who knows if my opinion would chage if i ever met a HIV person I was attracted to.


Also - regarding the story - I think it basically shows the strength of misinformation that is still apparent in religious circles - vary scary.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Sure, I don't think anyone was talking a without-protection scenario here, though.

Well, I'm not so sure there are plenty of people who would. But I don't know if those 'picky' things you named are really analogous to being HIV-positive, because they all involve stuff that's readily visible, so you're not very likely to get to the stage where you could deeply hurt someone by rejecting them for those reasons to begin with.

It is a very thorny issue though, I wouldn't disagree with that.

Yeah i wasn't really addressing anyone who said that - just thought i'd throw in my opnion on that as i had heard in the past people doing that - and it totally horrified me!

Yeah i do see that being short or whatever is totally different to being HIV positive - but I also think that being HIV positive is a very serious illness and should not be hidden when getting into a romantic relationship with someone. Especially as it is a disease that is life threatening AND contagious - it needs to be on the table as soon as the relationship starts going somewhere - waaaaaaay before sex is even mentioned and unfortunately if the person then rejected the relationship over that fact, they were not the right person for them. Sure they're may be some things you could possibly not bring up but i think HIV is a very important issue not to be taken lightly. I don't think HIV postive people should be treated like lepers, but there is a difference about hanging out or working with someone who is HIV positive when you can wear gloves if any accidents occur and so and so, and actually having that person put something that carries the virus somewhere where you can't see if anything has gotten out, or control it as much as you can by wearing gloves and protecting yourself from the disease.

 

[indra]

i'm sorry, but you're doing a terrible thing to an HIV positive person if you rejected them when they disclose, but have sex with them when they don't. that inspires sneaky, devious behavior, and that can't be a good thing.

i think we can all agree that disclosure is the best policy, but punishment for disclosure is something else.

And isn't the HIV positive person doing a terrible thing to a non HIV positive person by not disclosing that to a partner prior to having sex? No matter how small the risk, for me the possibility of contracting a serious, chronic, fatal disease from having sex with an HIV positive person outweighs that person's fear of rejection. I can't imagine that no matter how many precautions we would take while having sex that I would ever be without fear. And that wouldn't be good for any relationship.

But I don't know if those 'picky' things you named are really analogous to being HIV-positive, because they all involve stuff that's readily visible, so you're not very likely to get to the stage where you could deeply hurt someone by rejecting them for those reasons to begin with.

Because of dealings I've had in the past with some people with bipolar disorder I would not get into a romantic relationship with someone who diagnosed with bipolar, even if was currently under control. While I know relationships (and people, including -- hell, especially -- myself) aren't going to ever be perfect I just couldn't face getting into a relationship with a person I knew was bipolar. I do realise that many people with bipolar disorder are lovely people. I in no way mean to imply they aren't, although I know it seems that way. In many ways my rejection of someone with bipolar really would be "it's not you, it's me" because my inability to deal with it would be the deal breaker.

I'm sure in both of those cases the person I'd be declining to have a relationship with would be hurt and I'm sorry about that. But not nearly as sorry as we'd both be in a really lousy relationship. And I'm convinced that is what both would turn into. Maybe I'm just a rotten person and someone better wouldn't have a problem dealing with those situations, but I can't and I think it's better for everyone to acknowledge that upfront and deal with the initial hurt than to let the problem (which I realise could be mine alone) fester and be horrible for everyone.

 

[Vincent Vega]

but we seem to have people on this board who are saying that they probably wouldn't have sex with an HIV positive person, and i think we have to admit the possibility that such a big red flag might derail a relationship before it progressed to a sexual one.

Of course it would be a problem for a young relationship to develop.

But you can't take the right from the other person to say "no" so that the person having a STD feels better.

If the person having HIV was open from the beginning both could consult a doctor and ask about how safe it would be to have sex, or work it out somehow.

But you can't blame the healthy person for wanting to stay healthy.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Thanks! I didn't even know there was a google translation! I always used babelfish.

That's not better at all, believe me.
For a single word, yes, but for more, never

 

[MadelynIris]

Confession should be done face to face, with someone you know and trust and have a relationship with.

Especially if you're going to ask questions about contraception, which has nothing to do with an actual confession.

 

[Irvine511]

But you can't blame the healthy person for wanting to stay healthy.

but we know for a fact that it is perfectly possible to be in a relationship with an HIV positive person and for an HIV negative partner to remain perfectly healthy.

i should also step back and realize that most people (actually, probably everyone) who's responding is straight. and probably not african-american. you probably don't know many people who are HIV positive, if anyone, and probably haven't seen couples (very happy couples) who are of different HIV status and stay together for 20 years (as better medications often reduce the virus to undetectable levels, even if someone was infected in the early 1980s).

i have. i also know HIV positive people who despair at the double standards and the stigmatization -- the fact that they are, in fact, treated like lepers due to *ignorance* about how the disease is transmitted, about how some people will sleep with anyone if they don't know your HIV status, but will drop you like a rock the moment they find out that you're positive.

and this is what i think is most harmful -- you're encouraging deception.

good gosh, how do you think an HIV+ person would feel reading these posts?

 

[Vincent Vega]

No one says to stop any relationship

To say "no" regarding sex doesn't mean at all to say no to the relationship, or to leave the partner.

Like I said, you could work it out. Most important is, that the partner infected tells before.
And I think every person has to accept the decision the other makes.
You can't force one to say "yes".

"Oh, normally I wouldn't have sex with someone being HIV positive because I'm afraid to get infected, but on order to not hurt your feelings I say yes." ?

 

[Liesje]

but we know for a fact that it is perfectly possible to be in a relationship with an HIV positive person and for an HIV negative partner to remain perfectly healthy.

But as a woman, as the "bottom", it's also far more likely that I could get HIV than say if I were the one that had HIV and my husband didn't, or if I was a "top" guy in a homosexual relationship.

I agree it's always possible to have a relationship, but going from just a relationship to a sexual, intimate relationship is going to depend on the boundaries of both partners. To me, sex is an important part of an intimate, committed relationship. I can't imagine someone wanting to be in a lifelong relationship with me and not ever have sex. But at the same time, I'm not putting my life at risk for that. I want to have babies some day and I don't want even the slightest chance that they'd be exposed to any STD or health concern I could have easily prevented. There are always going to be risks that come with sex; nothing is guaranteed. I don't want to have kids yet so I take pills, but I accept that an accident could happen and if I got pregnant, I'm already committed to having the child. Unlike an unplanned child, I just plain don't want a fatal disease of any sorts, so I'm not willing to take those risks.

But like I've said all along, I always ask. So if the person does have STDs, the relationship ends before it gets to the point where people are hurt b/c of emotional involvement. I'm not one for intentionally destroying people's feelings, but I do have my personal convictions and staying true to who I am is important to me. The second I start putting myself at risk, it's a loss of self-respect. It really is not about the person with HIV.

 

[redhotswami]

Confession should be done face to face, with someone you know and trust and have a relationship with.

Especially if you're going to ask questions about contraception, which has nothing to do with an actual confession.

I agree, though I was surprised to learn how many churches still do it with partitions. You can't even see the priest on the other side.

And I too thought it was interesting that this wasn't even an actual confession. If the guy really wanted medical advice, he should see a health professional. Going to someone who is not a health professional, such as priest, etc. shows he was just trying to stir things up.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The second I start putting myself at risk, it's a loss of self-respect. It really is not about the person with HIV.

I agree with that, and that is a perfectly legitimate rationale. It's a personal responsibility question, not a question of making any sort of judgment, moral or otherwise, about a person with HIV. There is a risk of numerous STD's any and every time anyone has sex. In an ideal world both parties are completely honest about their conditions, and all methods of protection are always 100 percent effective. But we all know that doesn't exist. So people have to live within the real world and behave accordingly in order to protect their personal health and the health of partners. Some people seem to make decisions that might indicate they are living in some sort of denial of the risks involved with sex. I am talking about any and all people, not at all about just HIV positive people. I would think the people who live in the most denial are actually negative. That is the way one might choose to live-but once you involve another person you are responsible for that. It is a shared responsibility, but also a personal one.

Ideally we temper our personal health concerns with compassion and decency for the other person and for all HIV positive people. It is the responsibility of both people to be honest and to be responsible. I don't think any of that reasoning involves any sort of discrimination towards HIV positive people.

 

[dazzlingamy]

and this is what i think is most harmful -- you're encouraging deception.

So because I don't want to have sex with a HIV person - then I have to take responsibility for them LYING to me if they don't tell me their positive because of my stance on that? Come on - that is so wrong what happened to everyone takes responsibilities for their own actions.

And frankly I don't like lying and believe trust in a relationship is vital over all else, so the relationship is over from the moment he lied about something so important to both of us.

Yes having HIV wouldn't be a walk in the park - but jeesh everyone gets shit on from time to time you gotta learn to roll with the punches. Everyone needs to learn to toughen up a bit - there are plenty of support groups and people out there for HIV sufferers, im sure there are lovely people there who are more at ease at having a relationship with a HIV person. This isn't something derogatory like 'oh i wouldn't sleep with a black person' because HIV regardless of all the new drugs is still andextremely contagious and fatal disease and you are taking another person's health and life nto your hands if you decide not to disclose before things get to serious. boo hoo if they up and leave - they're not the right person for you - move on!

And hopefully if a HIV person was reading this thread they would be mature and sensible enough to realise why people feel this way. Until there is a cure, or a fail safe way there are alwaysgoing to be people who shy away from it. Its the way it is and its not going to change.

 

[Irvine511]

So because I don't want to have sex with a HIV person - then I have to take responsibility for them LYING to me if they don't tell me their positive because of my stance on that? Come on - that is so wrong what happened to everyone takes responsibilities for their own actions.

so, say you (hypothetical you) go to a bar, you go home with a guy, you have sex, protected sex, and the next few weeks you go out a few times, you think you really like each other, you want to have sex again, he says, "sure, but you should know i'm HIV positive, so we'll always have to use condoms," would you then drop him like a ton of bricks? and would you drop him for lying (or, not disclosing, but then, did you say, "i'm negative," or maybe, "i have herpes but haven't had an outbreak in 2 years"), or because he has HIV?

i think we should all put ourselves in the shoes of an HIV+ person. i totally understand the fear of the disease, BELIEVE me i do, as i probably spent much more time worrying about it when i was dating than your average straight person, but we also know that the disease is 100% preventable, and most people with HIV (once they know their status ... do we all know our status?) never infect other people.



[q]And frankly I don't like lying and believe trust in a relationship is vital over all else, so the relationship is over from the moment he lied about something so important to both of us.[/q]

did you "lie" about not being positive if you don't come out and say, "i don't have HIV"?

Its the way it is and its not going to change.

but we can change things by talking about HIV in less dire, apocalyptic, fearful terms than we naturally do. again, i want to stress that i understand the fear, but the fear is often misplaced and uninformed, and i point to the example of couples who have a different HIV status to prove that safe sex does work. if you know what to do, it is possible to have a healthy and active sex life without ever transmitting the virus.

Lies -- in addition to being well up on gay terminology what with her tops and bottoms -- brings up a good point about wanting to be pregnant one day. that, to me, is a more rational concern than fear that you'll get the virus from someone who knows they have it and knows what to do in order to prevent it. that is something that i struggled with when i was dating, that i would, one day, like to have "real" sex with a monogamous partner, and i could never do that if i were negative and my boyfriend/partner were positive. but then, that's where it makes sense to sort of buck up and deal with it. many gay couples go their entire lives using condoms each and every time, so i don't have too much pity for a straight person (desire to get pregnant aside ... though it does beg the adoption question) who might have to use condoms all the time as well.

my big and broad point is that having concern and compassion and understanding and lack of fear towards HIV+ people will do much to actually reduce the transmission of HIV. the vast, vast majority of HIV transmission occurs when people don't know their status. the vast, vast majority of people who know their status do not infect other people, and they usually inform their partners, and i actually do agree that if you have HIV and know your status and do not disclose and have unprotected sex with another person, it could be a criminal offense ... but doesn't the other person also have a responsibility to assume that their partner might be HIV positive and take preventative measures?

 

[dazzlingamy]

While I do agree that both people are responsible for preventitive measures in safe sex when having sex, I also believe that someone who is HIV positive should be upfront about the disease before anything sexual goes on regardless if i ask or not. It is their responsibilty to let me know as a potential sexual partner they have the disease. I don't care if we had protected sex if he didn't tell me - i would be so appalled and angry. Condoms arn't fail safe - sure they're extremely effective, but there are small risks, very small but enough to make me think twice - plus so much can go wrong, it could slip off (has happened to me before oh the horrendousness of that moment), break etc etc to really every be enough for me to feel comfrotable about having sex with a HIV positive person.

Also, while i agree children is another reason for me - what about the people who don't want kids? Are they not allowed to be concerned about their health on a purely selfish reason? Is only the want of having children down the track an acceptable answer for not wanting a sexual relationship with a HIV positive person?

Also, im not lying when I say 'i don't have HIV' for the premise is not there for it to be a lie - but on the other hand not saying you have it regardless of the precautions you take is lying as it is a point - because as an adult you must take responsibilty for something you have that can have fatal consequences on someone else.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Weird...after reading this whole thread, it's almost like...the best approach would be to be in a committed relationship with someone before you have sex. I mean, then the issue of HIV status would certainly already be discussed. And at that point in the relationship, an HIV-negative person would have to be at the point where they would want to understand the realities of the HIV-positive partner they love (rather than relying on misinformed fear and ignorance) before they made a decision to bolt. It seems like the interests of both the HIV-positive and HIV-negative persons would be protected (as much as possible in what is bound to be a tough situation under the best of circumstances).

It seems to me like that would be the best approach: solid, committed relationship as prerequisite for sexual activity. I'm not saying everyone has to take the best approach...but why wouldn't you want to?

 

[babble]

but we also know that the disease is 100% preventable

I think this is where the crux of the disagreement lies.
According to the CDC , condoms have been proven to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS but there is no absolute guarantee. As yet, the only way to guarantee that you will not become infected with HIV is to abstain from sexual relations with an HIV positive individual.

Although condoms have been proven to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, and as you have pointed out, it is possible to have a sexual relationship with an HIV positive individual and not contract HIV, we can't dismiss the fact that there is still a chance, however small, that one might contract this life-threatening disease through sexual relations with an HIV-positive person.

In light of these facts, I wonder how you can imply that an individual who attempts to protect themselves from the danger of infection by not having or continuing to have sexual relations with an HIV infected partner is behaving in a stigmatizing, insensitive, and morally reprehensible way.
This is a potentially life-altering decision that no one should be influenced to make through guilt.

This sort of rejection is unfortunately one of the things that HIV positive people have to deal with and can effectively through the help of counseling, support groups, and loving family and friends who can help them understand that this sort of rejection is not a reflection of their worth as a human being but that is an enormous and very difficult decision for an non-HIV positive individual to make.

 

[BoMac]

Woman tells Sask trial that ex-CFLer Trevis Smith never told her he had HIV

Tim Cook, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, February 01, 2007

REGINA (CP) - A second woman accusing a former Canadian Football League player of knowingly exposing her to HIV says he never told her he had the virus, even after he knew she planned to donate a kidney to her ailing father.

The 26-year-old British Columbia woman testified Wednesday that she only realized Trevis Smith was HIV-positive when she called an unknown number on her cellphone and was told about his infection by the woman who answered. "I didn't think someone could be so malicious," the well-spoken and confident-sounding woman told provincial court Judge Kenn Bellerose.

"I still don't understand till this day how someone rationalizes that."

Over the course of a four-year relationship, the woman testified that Smith had met her family, including her father, who was suffering from renal failure. She had even told him she planned to be a living organ donor so her dad could recover.

She said she has since tested negative for HIV and her father got her kidney last February.

Smith, 30, is charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault for allegedly not informing his partners about his HIV-positive status before having unprotected sex.

Court has already heard how the married father of two learned he was infected in November 2003 and that police laid charges two years later, when the B.C. woman came forward.

She cannot be identified due to a publication ban.

The woman testified how she met Smith, then a linebacker for the Saskatchewan Roughriders, in the fall of 2001 at a nightclub in Vancouver.

The two soon struck up a long-distance relationship that would last until 2005.

The woman testified they talked on the phone almost every day, and visited each other in B.C. and Regina.

At first, they used protection during sex, she said, because she was aware professional athletes can sometimes "sleep around."

But early on, they both assured one another that neither had any infections and stopped taking precautions.

The woman testified how in August 2004 - about nine months after public health nurses told Smith he was HIV-positive - she travelled to Regina to surprise him on his birthday. But he wasn't himself during the visit.

While Smith was away at practice one day, she found a pamphlet called "Living with HIV" in one of his bags.

She panicked and hysterically called the number of the public health nurse who had attached her card to the cover. Public health told her they couldn't tell her anything about Smith, but rushed her in for an HIV test which came out negative, she said.

She said she didn't confront Smith about the pamphlet because she felt she had violated his privacy. Instead, she told him she went to get tested because she saw a picture of another woman in his house and was worried he was sleeping around.

In the days that followed, Smith explained that he was acting strangely because a woman in Regina was accusing him of giving her HIV. The police were involved and he had gotten a lawyer, but it wasn't true, she said he told her.

"I believed him because (if he) had it, I would have it," she said. "I don't have it; how does he have it?"

She said the two continued to have unprotected sex.

In the months that followed, they travelled together several times. During a Las Vegas trip in May 2005, Smith used her cellphone to text message some "friends," she said. But the woman testified it "just didn't seem right" and she called one of the numbers when she got back.

On the other end was a woman from Regina claiming to be Smith's girlfriend and telling her that he was HIV-positive.

"I cried," the B.C. woman recalled. "There was something in her tone that I just believed what she said."

But she testified she stayed in touch with Smith for several more months, repeatedly asking him when they talked if there was something he thought she should know.

"I wanted him to face me. I wanted him to tell me the truth."

Finally, when the Roughriders travelled to B.C. for a game in the fall of 2005, she met Smith at the team's hotel. While the two were in her car, she confronted him with what she knew.

"I cried and all he could say is . . . 'I'm sorry. I was scared.' "

She said he seemed worried she would go to police, which the evidence shows she had already done.

On cross-examination, Smith's lawyer Marie-Helene Giroux drew the woman's attention to a call she received from B.C. Health shortly after her August 2004 trip to Regina.

The woman said she was told on the call that she had been listed as a sexual contact of someone who had HIV, but the person did not give Smith's name.
She said she was tested again and was negative.

Giroux wondered why, with all the warning signs she received around that time, she continued to have unprotected sex with Smith.

"Didn't you have enough information ringing a bell that it could be sexually dangerous to sleep with him?" Giroux charged.

"He swore up and down he didn't have it," she responded. "It's maybe wrong of me for believing that someone would be honest."